[Texas Songwriter]

Hello my Friend (initially I spelled fiend, but that was a mistake in typing). So.....here we go.

On Panspermia......I agree with you...it is nonsense. No more comment. On your devotion to the idea of panspermia.....you say...it could be scientifically confirmed......That is your statement of faith I referenced in a previous post to you. Nothing more needs be said.

If you would provide me with scientific documents proving bacteria inhabit outer space I would like to read them.

Your assertion that panspermia is unlikely by not impossible is philosophical assumption you make. I will not go there with you. It remains nonsense, like the moon is made of green cheese. I suppose there is such a theory, but it remains inane and without one centilla of evidence.

Early life.....3.9 billion years ago?......Cambrium 600 million years ago. Precambrium blue green algae found but never dated to nearly 4 billion years, has it. If it has please give me reference. Are you talking about Alexandr Oparin's theory of coacervates? Prelife.....hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen....they are all necessary for life.....but Prelife.....please give me a scientific reference for defining life as phospholipid membrane, a method of gathering energy, and reproduction which would constitute life. Now on to Haeckel......

You people. You people. OK. We people keep alleging fraud and deceit by Haeckel regarding ontology recapitulating phylogeny. Now, I am not an expert. I have had a few embryology courses but I read after experts and so I will quote Those People for you. Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity. Darwin was no embryologist, but he was an adherent of Haeckel's views on this subject. Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings. As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions. Before the publication of 'Origin' Europe's most famous embryologist was Karl Ernst von Baer. Von Baer was the first to refute Haeckel's 'Preformationism' and the 'Law of Parallelism". These ideas were propounded not only by Haeckel, but by two other famous embryologists of the day, Johan Friedrich Meckel (of Meckel's diverticulum fame) and Etienne Serres. although at the time they were referred to as 'laws' they were simply summaries of empirical observations of that time, and they did not fit or comport with observations and had to be abandoned. According to Scientific historian of the time, Timothy Lenoir, von Baer feared that the Darwinists had "already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos. Scientific historian, Fritz Muller, who Darwin sited, "encouraged the confusion, but it was Mullers student, Ernst Haeckel, who 'dramatized the obfuscation' and became its most ardent promoter." Both Adam Sedwick and Frank Lillie acknowledged that recapitulation was a deduction, not an observation and remains so until today. This refutation of Haeckel was in 1909 (Those People). From the beginning Haeckel's biogenetic "law" was simply an deduction of inference, NOT OBSERVATION. By the 1920's the 'law of phyologeny was falling out of favor among embryologists who knew, but the educates kept the lie in school books for indoctrination reasons into Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould said "the biogenetic las fell only when it became unfashionable." Historian of Science, Nicholas Rasmussen agreed with Gould, putting it this way, "All the important evidence called upon in the rejection of the biogenetic law was there from the FIRST Days of the laws acceptance."

In 1922 Walter Garstang criticized Haeckel's biogenetic law as "demonstrably unsound" because ontogentic stages afford not the slightest evidence of the specially adult features of the ancestry."

in 1940 -1958 British embryologist Gavin de Beer likewise, in his three volume book criticized Haeckel's recapitulation biogenetic law, saying that Haeckel's theory of recapitulation had "thwarted and delayed embryological research".

Haeckel's drawings were fabricated. Jane Oppenheimer said, "Haeckel's hand as an artist altered what he saw with what should have been the eye of a more accurate beholder". Wilhelm His accused Haeckel of SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION. In 1995 Michael Richardson noted that" the embryos drawn were not consistent with other data on the development of those species." He further said, the drawings show,"a clear misrepresentation of the truth".

Stephen Jay Gould, in March 2000 issue of said of Haeckel, that he exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions."

I will stop here......You get the picture....I could give you another 25 such quotes, by not Us People but by Those People-experts in the field of embryology. You have their quotes, not my quotes now, my Friend. Now you must make a determination about the validity of the recapitulation law. Are we a "tad dishonest"? Is that a fair indictment of people who have actually reviewed the literature by someone who clearly has never investigated it? I think not, my Friend.

It seems to fit what Richard Lewontin of Harvard University said, "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are "against common sense" is the "key to understanding" of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science 'in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs"," in spite of its failure" to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment to materialism."

I will stop here. If you really want to go into truth, naturalism, and presuppositionalism I will do so. It is a long ride to discuss it seriously. I will, if you are sure you want to go there.

I take note of you pointing out my core, deep rooted, fundamental problem but I am yet to get any substantive information from you yet. Here I reference you referring me to experts. Your opinion is measured in the balance and I see no use in regarding it about my deep, core rooted, fundamental problems. I will continue to deal in scientific fact and truth when speaking with you. I suspect all you want from me is reference to the facts. That is common ground we can discuss these issues upon. For this we must engage logic, reason, and rational thought. That seems only fair.

[BroJoeK]

Texas Songwriter: "Hello my Friend..."

Then FRiend it is!

Texas Songwriter: "On your devotion to the idea of panspermia.....you say...it could be scientifically confirmed......
That is your statement of faith I referenced in a previous post to you."

But, of course, I am in no way, in your word "devoted" to the idea of panspermia, nor is "could be" ever a "statement of faith."
Indeed, you insult serious real faith to suggest that "could be" equals "faith".

I merely reported, factually, that panspermia is just one hypothesis among at least a dozen now "out there" on how life might have begun on earth.

Here is just one list of those hypotheses, which I linked to in a post here "Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists", but just for you, I'll post the whole list here.
Of course, this particular list is not rigorously defined, it's incomplete and overstocked with historical ideas, currently discredited.
So I only post it as a representative sample of ideas floating around "out there".
For details on each item, see the link here.

• 10. Panspermia:
  

• 9. Biopoesis:
  

• 8. Cosmogeny:
  

• 7. Endosymbiosis:
  

• 6. Spontaneous Generation:
  

• 5. Clay "Theory"
  

• 4. "Theory" of Consecutive Creations
  

• 3. Materialistic "Theory"
  

• 2. Organic Evolution
  

• 1. "Theory" of Special Creation
  

But, if this list leaves you unsatisfied, then you might consider another list, which includes some of the same items, plus some others left off the above...

Texas Songwriter: "If you would provide me with scientific documents proving bacteria inhabit outer space I would like to read them."

Of course not, it's merely suggested that life might somehow survive inside a comet or asteroid thrown out by some collision with a planet.
"Hypothesis" means: "it coulda happened", not some article of religious faith, for goodness sakes!

Texas Songwriter: "Your assertion that panspermia is unlikely by not impossible is philosophical assumption you make."

No it isn't!
It's a hypothesis which has not yet been fully tested, and therefore not firmly falsified, yet.
So I don't "get" why you keep trying to turn science into some kind of religion.
It's not, it's the opposite of a religion, FRiend.
Do I need to explain why, again?

Texas Songwriter: "Early life.....3.9 billion years ago?......
Cambrium 600 million years ago.
Precambrium blue green algae found but never dated to nearly 4 billion years, has it.
If it has please give me reference."

Of course, no "life" has been found from 3.9 billion years ago, but evidence thought to be left by primitive life has been found from that time, as listed here:

• 3.7 bya "The earliest evidence for life on Earth is graphite found to be biogenic in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[2]

• 3.5 bya: "and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.[3][4]

• 3.5 bya: "The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga...

• 2.5 bya: "Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[5]

• 2.4 bya: "[Photosynthesis] ...eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[6]

• 1.9 bya: "The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga.

• 1.7 bya: "Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[9]

• 555 mya: "Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago"

For a more scholarly discussion of Origin of Life ideas, I suggest this 2012 book by Addy Pross: "What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology"

Texas Songwriter: "Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity."

And, if stated correctly such an idea is 100% factual.
In fact, there is great similarity in early fetuses of closely related creatures, with species-defining features only emerging in later development.
Even in less-closely-related creatures, there is still some remarkable similarity, of which we've now mentioned the example of "gill slits" several times.
That Earnst Haenkel interpreted these facts somewhat incorrectly (in 1874!) is true, but I would give him credit for honest mistakes, not deliberate deceptions.

Today Haenkel's idea -- "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- is considered "defunct", but not totally wrong:

"The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct.[23]
However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures"

So, here's what I don't understand: why do you people take Haeckel's work as not just obsolete, but as a personal insult, if not physical assault, on you?.
Do you likewise condemn every single scientist who ever published anything which later proved somewhat invalid?
What's up with that?

Texas Songwriter: "Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings.
As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions."

Sure, some at the time disputed his recapitulation idea, and even then claimed fraud:

"While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[29]

Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.
[30][31] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud.
It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.[32]
Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time.[33]
The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory)."

Texas Songwriter: "Now you must make a determination about the validity of the recapitulation law.
Are we a "tad dishonest"?
Is that a fair indictment of people who have actually reviewed the literature by someone who clearly has never investigated it?
I think not, my Friend."

Haeckel published 144 years ago, in 1870 and died 95 years ago, in 1919.
His work was controversial at the time, though nobody then fully understood the truth of the matter.

Now, biologists long ago decided that Haeckel's idea of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is not 100% accurate, but also not entirely wrong.

Texas Songwriter quoting Lewontin: "We take the side of science 'in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs', 'in spite of its failure' to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment to materialism."

Lewontin (age 85) is a well known evolutionary biologist and geneticist.
Like any active academic, he enjoys controversy and splitting hairs with other academics over fine points of theory.
His words you quote here could well refer to our average citizens, those Rush calls "low information voters".
Yes, it is indeed possible that science has replaced religion in their minds as the great hope for eternal life.

But Lewontin's reference to science's "a priori commitment to materialism" is, in fact, the core principle upon which all of Natural-Science is based.
To complain about it is like complaining about the sun rising and setting -- it is what it is.
Until & unless somebody like Lewontin were to propose some new, better, more effective scientific principle to replace "methodological naturalism" -- it will remain the foundation of all future scientific enterprises.

Texas Songwriter: "I take note of you pointing out my core, deep rooted, fundamental problem but I am yet to get any substantive information from you yet."

No you didn't "take note", because clearly you missed my point: you don't grasp that natural-science is not all about higher forms of truth, such as morals, or matters philosophical, supernatural & spiritual.
By definition, because they are non-material, natural-science can't define those, can't address them, and really, should not even go there.

So, if you are "looking for Higher Truth in all the wrong places", don't waste any more time with natural-science, because you won't find it there, FRiend.
Where, seriously, can you find such Truth?
Well, every town & city has them, they meet Sunday mornings, and it is, Truly, their Number One concern.

;-)